Population (Replaces BWP) From migration counts and studies in different countries, numbers seem to be mor e fluctuating than

stable. However, estimates of populations and trends are diff icult because of secretive habits during the breeding cycle. Therefore, the key question is still whether Honey Buzzard populations tend towards stability (Glut z et al. 1971) or fluctuate (Galushin 1974). The answer seems to be that both st rategies are used. Honey Buzzards are long-lived raptors: oldest ringed bird 28 years 10 months. They are strongly K-selected with low reproductive output and o ften markedly philopatric. Some nests and territories were used for more than 20 years (Kostrzewa 1985). Extraordinarily, a 1-year-old bird was proved breeding, while data from lifetables indicate shorter lifespans. Mean life expectation fo r first-year birds was calculated at 2.2 years and for older birds 3.6 years (Bi jlsma et al. 1993; n = 27). Swedish birds show first-year survival of 48.8%, sec ond-year 85.8%, and adult 86% which will give a much higher lifespan (Tjernberg and Ryttmann 1994). However, Lakhani and Newton (1983) showed that lifespans cal culated solely from lifetables and ignoring field observations of individually m arked birds can overestimate mortality. In Russia, Honey Buzzards seemed to be n ot philopatric at all. Galushin (1974) found birds during the breeding season c. 1000 km (SD 375 km) from their ringing sites. This suggests possible nomadism. The hypothesis, therefore, is that Honey Buzzards show philopatry in optimal hab itat (i.e. on dry soils with a good wasp population) but are more nomadic in sub optimal habitat with changing food resources (Kostrzewa 1987). In the German stu dy area, weather during spring and early summer proved to be a limiting factor f or territory numbers (Kostrzewa 1989). Population Studies Four areas in The Netherlands showed slightly different trends (Bijlsma et al. 1 993): in ZW-Drenthe, numbers slowly increased from 1970 onwards (2-12 pairs in 1 991), two Veluwe areas were fairly stable (11-23 pairs in 1979-91, and 10-18 in 1973-90, with maximum of 20 in several years, respectively), and the Nijmegen an d Reichswald area was stable with a small decline from mid-1970s to mid-1980s (6 -9 pairs 1969-92, with maximum of 10 in 1970). In Germany, two areas showed stro ngly decreasing numbers: in the Rhineland, pairs declined from a maximum of 19 t o a minimum of 4 pairs (1988) during 1979-89 (Kostrzewa 1991a), in the Mnsterland pairs declined from 44 (1977) to 15 (1985) with a minimum of 10 pairs in 1984 ( F Csters in litt.). This decline continued during the 1990s (AG-Greifvgel, 1999). One area in Jutland (Denmark) also showed a decline, from 12 pairs in 1974 to 8 in 1987 with a minimum of 5 and 4 pairs in 1983 and 1984, respectively (Rasmusse n and Storgard 1981). In Germany and Denmark, minimum figures were nearly parall el during 1983-5. These years were characterized by extremely bad weather with h igh rainfall during May (1983 and 1984) and June (1985). Nevertheless, the Nethe rlands study areas showed only very small declines in numbers of pairs during th ese years. Probably the dry and sandy soils in these areas had a positive effect while especially in Germany the moist soil in the nesting territories was soake d and parts of the woodland were flooded. (Studies with less than 100 pair-years or less than 10 years were not included.) Population Density Despite large-scale counts or estimates, there is also a requirement for density figures for suitable habitat or for whole landscapes of several hundred square kilometres in size. The mean size of woodland per pair was c. 1000 ha (23 areas in central Europe: Kostrzewa 1985, Table 2). Data from 48 different sources gave a mean density of 4.52 + 5.37 pairs per 100 km2 and a median of 2.57. However, small areas were greatly over-represented in this sample. Nine areas were smalle r than 50 km2 and three smaller than 100 km2, totalling up to 25% of all areas c hecked, while mean size was c. 200 km2. A log-corrected value gave a more realis tic density figure for large areas of c. 1 pair per 100 km2 (Kostrzewa 1991a) (F ig. 5). This is much less than the density of Goshawks (2.0 pairs per 100 km2) o r Common Buzzards (14.0 pairs per 100 km2) estimated by similar methods (Kostrze wa and Speer 1995, Table 19). Numbers

Britain 8-15 pairs in 1980s. Increasing during 1990s, now 50-60 pairs (Roberts et al., 1 999). France 8000-12 000 pairs. Belgium. 300-450 pairs in 1989-91; increase? Luxembourg 100-150 pairs in 1993. Netherlands 630-760 pairs in 1985-92 (Bijlsma et al. 1993). Germany 3600 pairs in the early 1990s (Kostrzewa and Speer 1995) or 3800 (Mebs 1994). Da ta in Rheinwald (1993, old atlas) of 7700 overestimate the population by not tak ing too small census areas into account. Denmark 600-700 pairs in 1988. Norway 500-1000 pairs in 1970-90. Sweden 5000-10 000 in the late 1980s. Finland 4000-8000 pairs in the late 1980s. Estonia 600-1000 pairs in 1991. Latvia 1500-2500 pairs in 1980s. Lithuania 130-160 pairs. Poland c. 2500 pairs in 1990 (after Mebs 1994). Czech Republic c. 700 pairs in 1990 (after Danko, Hudec, and Mrilik in Mebs 1994). Slovakia 700-1000 pairs in 1973-94, another estimate is c. 800 in 1990 (see Czech Republi c). Hungary c. 300 in 1993 (after Haraszthy in Mebs 1994). Austria 1500 pairs in 1993 (A Gamauf). Switzerland 500 pairs in 1990, declining (Schmid 1990). Spain 1000-2000 pairs 1980s to early 1990s. Portugal 10-100 pairs in 1989. Italy 500-800 pairs in 1983-93. Greece 300-500 pairs (perhaps more). Albania Perhaps 10-100 pairs in 1963. Yugoslavia: Croatia Perhaps 150-250 pairs. Yugoslavia: Slovenia 600-800 pairs. Bulgaria 50-100 pairs; decreasing? Rumania At least 100-250 pairs in 1986-92. Russia c. 100 000 pairs; stable or locally increasing?

Belarus 900-1000 pairs in 1990. Ukraine 320-350 pairs in 1988; slightly decreasing? Moldovia 30-50 pairs in 1989; slight decline? Turkey 50 pairs. These counts and estimates add up to a minimum figure of 135 188 and a maximum of 153 385 pairs (cf. Movements). Conservation (New section) Hunting has been reported as a main threat along the migration routes for many y ears. There are reports from Orgambideska Pass (France); Strait of Messina (Ital y; Giordano 1989); Lebanon and other countries around the Mediterranean, where h unting and poaching have a long tradition. Because existing legislation to prote ct raptors cannot be enforced in most countries, the main threat is still shooti ng on migration (Bijlsma 1987). Another serious threat is the rapid progress in habitat destruction especially of rain forest in western Africa (Kostrzewa and Speer 1995). In European breeding grounds raptors are still illegally hunted [Bijlsma et al. (1993) found most birds were shot in The Netherlands] or poisoned. Tjern berg and Ryttmann (1994) presumed that hunting lowered survival of Swedish birds significantly. For a stable population a recruitment of 0.67 young per pair per year was required, but without hunting this could by lowered to 0.34 keeping a stable population. Honey Buzzards are also sometimes shot from their nests when confused with young Goshawks (A Kostrzewa). Probably little affected by organochlorine pesticides. Four eggs from Belgium (1 969-74) showed low contamination (p.p.m., dry mass: HCB 0.05, Lindan 0.15, DDE 0 .35, PCB 3.0, HE 0.3, Diel 0.2; Joins and Delbeke 1981), as did four eggs from t he Rhineland (p.p.m., dry mass: HCB 0.037, Lindan traces, DDE 1.06, PCB 6.36, HE nil, Diel nil, data 1981-2, two unsuccessful nests; Kostrzewa 1984). It is prob able that PCBs were increasing during the 1970s and early 1980s as in most rapto r species.